Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a U.S. House committee hearing on the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA). The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), heard from a panel of expert witnesses on the scope and effect of FADA.

Introduced by Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-ID), FADA would prohibit the government from taking “discriminatory actions” against a person who holds or acts on a “religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman,” or the belief that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” If the government took such an action against a person, he or she would then be entitled to sue the government and seek damages.

Ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) noted that the committee received over eighty letters asking Congress to cancel the hearing, including a letter from over 3,000 clergy and religious organizations. The American Humanist Association and other secular organizations were among the signees. (Read their letter here.) Yet despite this strong opposition, Congress scheduled the hearing— exactly one month after the mass shooting at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, which killed more than fifty people.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who co-sponsored the bill’s Senate version, insisted FADA was a response to the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage. It’s unclear what impact Obergefell will have on religious groups who object to same-sex marriage, he argued, and FADA would protect them from losing their tax exempt status, being denied federal funding, or being excluded from government contracts.

When questioned by the Democratic minority, Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia Law School testified that FADA would allow businesses, employers, landlords, and hospitals to discriminate against the LGBT community and unmarried parents if they demonstrate they have a sincerely held religious or moral objection to same-sex marriage or premarital sex.

According to Franke, FADA would allow hospital staff who see homosexuality as an abomination to deny a gay man access to his partner’s sick bed. It would allow landlords who believe premarital sex is a sin to refuse to rent to families with children born out of wedlock. It would place one person’s religious beliefs above the worth and dignity of other people.

Former Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), the first acting member of Congress to come out as gay, added that federal law doesn’t protect LGBTQ people from discrimination. Only nineteen states and the District of Columbia explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Even if there were comprehensive civil rights protections, FADA would actually prevent the government from enforcing them because it would be considered discrimination against religious objectors.

Cummings compared FADA to racial discrimination under Jim Crow. He saw no significant difference between the discrimination he faced as a black man and the discrimination LGBTQ people face today. Franke added that the arguments made in support of FADA were once made in support of segregation by religious groups who attested that God created the races separate and that the white race was superior to others.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) rightly noted that America is not a theocracy. The Framers of the Constitution saw theocratic regimes and adopted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to safeguard our liberties. Passing FADA would give preferential treatment to religious groups who subscribe to a particular scriptural interpretation condemning same-sex marriage and premarital sex. Humanists agree with Lieu: FADA’s a step towards theocracy, and one we best not take. Contact your members of Congress today to voice your opposition to this dangerous and misleading legislation.

Amanda Scott is a government major at Georgetown University and the current summer 2016 intern at the Center for Freethought Equality.

“We applaud Julie Fahey, Diego Hernandez and Pam Marsh for demonstrating that politicians can win elections without professing religious beliefs,” said FEF Executive Director Roy Speckhardt. “If successful in November, these three new members to the Oregon State House will help to give the secular community a voice in the state capital and promote public policy based on evidence and reason.”

Julie Fahey is seeking election to Oregon's 14th State House District. Fahey, who doesn't identify with any religion, believes “critical thinking and science can best help us understand our world.” Her public policy decisions will be “guided by evidence and a rational approach to decision-making, rather than by dogma or religious beliefs.” She is passionate about protecting the environment, expanding economic opportunities, improving education, defending a woman’s right to choose, and will be a “tireless voice against discrimination in all its forms.” Fahey has spent the last 15 years in the private sector helping businesses and nonprofits pay and treat their employees fairly to create positive work environments. This is an open seat with the current incumbent running for Oregon’s Secretary of State.

Diego Hernandez is seeking election to Oregon’s 47th State House District. Hernandez, who was raised Catholic, is now an agnostic. He is a strong supporter of the separation of church and state and believes that public policy should be “subject to argument, and amenable to reason.” He is dedicated to supporting education, community safety, and an economy that supports working families and small businesses. He received a BA in Political Science and Ethnic Studies at the University of Oregon and a Masters in Social Work at Portland State University. He has worked as a middle and high school teacher and was elected to the school board. Hernandez is currently the Co-Executive Director of Momentum Alliance, a nonprofit that develops young civic leaders. This is an open seat with the incumbent running for another elective office.

Pam Marsh is seeking election to Oregon's 5th State House District. She is not affiliated with a religious organization and believes that “one’s religious views are irrelevant to public office.” Marsh has been an Ashland City Council member since 2012, and she is a small business owner and manager of the Ashland Emergency Food Bank. She earned a BA in Political Science from Southern Oregon University. Marsh is committed to strengthening public education and health care delivery systems, and increasing affordable housing and the minimum wage. She will promote legislation to address climate change by fostering an energy economy based on renewable resources and emerging technologies. The current Democratic incumbent is retiring, and Marsh is running unopposed in the Democratic primary.

These candidates will now advance to the general election on November 8, 2016. All three are seeking to fill open seats with the current Democratic incumbents seeking other offices or retiring.

###

The mission of the Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) is to change the face of American politics and to achieve equality by increasing the number of open humanist and atheists, and their allies, in public office at all levels of government. FEF supports progressive candidates who are strong advocates for the separation of religion and government and the protection of American’s civil liberties. FEF is affiliated with the Center for Freethought Equality, which is the advocacy and political arm of the American Humanist Association. To learn more about the Freethought Equality Fund, visit Facebook and Twitter.

(Washington, D.C., Apr. 27, 2016) —Yesterday, Jamie Raskin, humanist candidate endorsed by the Freethought Equality Fund (FEF), won a very competitive race in a crowded field of candidates in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. In this heavily Democratic district, Raskin is expected to handily win the general election on Nov. 8, 2016.

“If successful in the general election, Raskin will be the only open humanist serving in the U.S. Congress, the first ever to win an open seat, and just the second humanist to serve in Congress. Raskin’s election is a significant event for the secular community and will help to dispel the baseless bias against this rapidly growing segment of America” said FEF Executive Director Roy Speckhardt. “Raskin has earned this victory with his highly respected public service and effective grassroots campaigning.”

The American Humanist Association defines humanism as a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Raskin plans to advance his progressive policies in the U.S. Congress as he did as a Maryland State Senator. In Annapolis he led floor fights to recognize same-sex marriage, repeal the death penalty, ban the shackling of pregnant prisoners in labor and legalize medical marijuana.

As a renowned professor of Constitutional law and member of the American Humanist Association, Raskin is also one of the nation’s leading advocates for reason in government, science-based public policy and the separation of church and state. Raskin received national notice from the progressive and the secular community in 2006 when he testified in favor of marriage equality. State Senator Nancy Jacobs said the Bible reserved marriage for a man and a woman. Raskin responded, “When you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.” The Freethought Equality Fund PAC will continue to endorse Raskin in the general election to further its mission to increase the acceptance of progressive nontheists.

###

The mission of the Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) is to change the face of American politics and to achieve equality by increasing the number of open humanist and atheists, and their allies, in public office at all levels of government. FEF supports progressive candidates who are strong advocates for the separation of religion and government and the protection of American's civil liberties. FEF is affiliated with the Center for Freethought Equality, which is the advocacy and political arm of the American Humanist Association. To learn more about the Freethought Equality Fund, visit Facebook and Twitter.

(Washington, D.C., Apr. 21, 2016) —The Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) PAC is endorsing three candidates running for open seats in the Oregon House of Representatives: Julie Fahey (District 14), Diego Hernandez (District 47) and Pam Marsh (District 5). The Democratic primary for these candidates will be held on May 17. “All of these candidates for the Oregon State House demonstrate a commitment to giving the secular community a voice in the public sphere and promote public policy based on evidence and reason,” said FEF Executive Director Roy Speckhardt.

Julie Fahey is seeking election to Oregon's 14th State House District. Fahey, who doesn't identify with any religion, believes “critical thinking and science can best help us understand our world.” Her public policy decisions will be “guided by evidence and a rational approach to decision-making, rather than by dogma or religious beliefs.” She is passionate about protecting the environment, expanding economic opportunities, improving education, defending a woman’s right to choose, and will be a “tireless voice against discrimination in all its forms.” Fahey has spent the last 15 years in the private sector helping businesses and nonprofits pay and treat their employees fairly to create positive work environments. This is an open seat with the current incumbent running for Oregon’s Secretary of State.

Diego Hernandez is seeking election to Oregon’s 47th State House District. Hernandez, who was raised Catholic, is now an agnostic. He is a strong supporter of the separation of church and state and believes that public policy should be “subject to argument, and amenable to reason.” He is dedicated to supporting education, community safety, and an economy that supports working families and small businesses. He received a BA in Political Science and Ethnic Studies at the University of Oregon and a Masters in Social Work at Portland State University. He has worked as a middle and high school teacher and was elected to the school board. Hernandez is currently the Co-Executive Director of Momentum Alliance, a nonprofit that develops young civic leaders. This is an open seat with the incumbent running for another elective office.

Pam Marsh is seeking election to Oregon's 5th State House District. She is not affiliated with a religious organization and believes that “one’s religious views are irrelevant to public office.” Marsh has been an Ashland City Council member since 2012, and she is a small business owner and manager of the Ashland Emergency Food Bank. She earned a BA in Political Science from Southern Oregon University. Marsh is committed to strengthening public education and health care delivery systems, and increasing affordable housing and the minimum wage. She will promote legislation to address climate change by fostering an energy economy based on renewable resources and emerging technologies. The current Democratic incumbent is retiring and Marsh is running unopposed in the Democratic primary.

###

The mission of the Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) is to change the face of American politics and to achieve equality by increasing the number of open humanist and atheists, and their allies, in public office at all levels of government. FEF supports progressive candidates that are strong advocates for the separation of religion and government and the protection of Americans civil liberties. FEF is affiliated with the Center for Freethought Equality, which is the advocacy and political arm of the American Humanist Association. To learn more about the Freethought Equality Fund, visit Facebook and Twitter.

(Washington, DC, Apr. 12, 2016)—Today, United States Representative Michael Honda (CA-17) introduced a resolution in the US House of Representatives, House Res. 670, recognizing May 5, 2016, as the National Day of Reason. The National Day of Reason is an initiative by the American Humanist Association to promote reason as a secular alternative to the National Day of Prayer.

Upon introduction of the resolution, Rep. Honda said "The National Day of Reason celebrates the positive impact the application of reason has had on humanity. The evolution of my Silicon Valley district into the world’s center of innovation came about through the use of the scientific method and the application of reason. These are fundamental pillars that scientists and engineers in Silicon Valley and around the country depend on to develop new technologies and cures for diseases. I introduced this resolution declaring May 5th, 2016 a National Day of Reason because the application of reason has proven to improve the conditions in which people live, offer hope for human survival on Earth, and cultivated intelligent, moral, and ethical behaviors and interactions among people. I encourage everyone to take this occasion to reflect upon the way that philosophical principles developed during the Age of Reason influenced our Founding Fathers as they formed our country and how the employment of reason, critical thought, the scientific method, and free inquiry can help resolve human problems and improve the welfare of humankind."

“National Day of Reason is a day for all Americans since everyone can see the value of reason in addressing the needs of the day,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. “While some may seek personal guidance from their god or gods, we encourage our elected leaders to use reason, compassion, and egalitarianism as their guides in determining what's best for America.”

The American Humanist Association worked closely with Rep. Honda to craft the National Day of Reason resolution. This is the second consecutive year that Rep. Honda has introduced a resolution to recognize the National Day of Reason, co-sponsored by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-At Large).

The American Humanist Association celebrates the National Day of Reason every first Thursday in May, the same day as the National Day of Prayer, created by a 1952 resolution of the US Congress. Reason is a value that religious and nonreligious individuals can both embrace, making the National Day of Reason an inclusive alternative to the National Day of Prayer that also upholds the separation of church and state.

Efforts are on-going to introduce National Day of Reason resolutions and proclamations at the state and local levels. Humanist groups across the country will observe the National Day of Reason with rallies, lectures and other events. More information can be found at NationalDayofReason.org.

The presidential race is nearing its final stage. The GOP’s smorgasbord of candidates for the presidency has finally been reduced to three contenders, with Donald Trump as the clear frontrunner within reach of the party nomination. Trump’s apparent victory is particularly interesting, not only because of his notoriety and appeal to prejudice, but also because he has triumphed over Republican candidates who apparently hold divine favor.

The idea that God wants candidates to run for the presidency is nothing new. Still, records from recent times show that the Almighty’s endorsement may be the kiss of death for politicians who seek the nation’s highest office.

Take Dr. Ben Carson, who recently dropped out of the race after a lackluster showing on Super Tuesday. When considering running for the presidency back in 2013, Carson stated, “I believe that God will make it clear to me if that’s something that I’m supposed to do.”

Even more “mainstream” candidates claimed God’s guidance in jumping in to the race. Senator Ted Cruz purportedly prayed for six months before announcing his candidacy, and his father claims that the senator only decided to run after God spoke through Cruz’s wife.

And that’s just the start of the heavenly mandates. Other politicians, from Michelle Bachmannto Rick Santorum to Mike Huckabee, all claimed that God either wanted them to run or supported their candidacy—yet they went on to lose the nominations battle.

God is either a bit of a prankster—or the world’s worst campaign manager. By “calling” on politicians to run for the presidency and then neglecting to work a miracle or two so that the preferred candidate wins the general election (or even the nomination), God has effectively left his many chosen politicians out to dry.

Strangely enough, the Republican Party doesn’t seem to respond well to these calls from on high to run for office, even though the GOP is the primary force behind weakening the separation between church and state. Mitt Romney, who won his party’s nomination in 2012, never claimed a divine inspiration as the basis for his campaign, and even Donald Trump has realized that claiming he is God’s candidate would be too crazy even for his carnival of a campaign.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that either God only chooses candidates he knows won’t win or that no such message was ever sent from heaven to earth. Either way, if you want to support a candidate for the presidency that actually has a chance of winning the election, my advice to you would be, don’t support the candidate endorsed by God.

I know that Iowa is technically the first state to decide which presidential candidates will represent their political parties in November, but New Hampshire has the nickname of the “first-in-the-nation” primary for a reason. Pollsters and political pundits get paid to appear on talk shows and the news to make their “bold” and “data-driven” predictions before and after each election during the primaries. But trying to make any sense in analysis of a caucus vote will make even politicos appear amateurish.

The results following the New Hampshire primary has given us a lot to talk about, and now we have the ability to make some informed predictions and opinions on future elections and what the general theme of this presidential cycle is.

Most political pundits have correctly framed this race on both sides as an election between establishment frontrunners and outside challengers. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton represent the establishment wing of their parties, while Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders represent opposition to the status quo. Trump and Sanders are trying to capitalize on the fact that many voters remain unsatisfied with our current government and the lack of authenticity from our elected officials.

But what else can we learn about the 2016 race for the White House after the Iowa and New Hampshire elections? Here are my takeaways for both parties after analyzing the exit poll data:

Republicans

The big question surrounding the GOP race for President after Iowa chose Ted Cruz as their nominee was whether or not Donald Trump’s great polling numbers were inflated by non-primary voters. He led in many polls preceding the vote, but the candidate known as a Christian conservative hero won even though it was virtually a tie. Can a political outsider who doesn’t represent either of the traditional core segments of the GOP, the Christian conservatives, or the moderate establishment win the Presidential nomination?

Many political pundits strongly claimed that this is a three-person race for the presidency after Iowa: one between Trump, Cruz, and Marco Rubio.

Here’s what we learned after the New Hampshire vote: Donald Trump will continue to be the GOP frontrunner for the presidential nomination until the southern evangelical votes start to come in. In a state that is one of the least religious in America, Trump won almost every demographic category of voters, including those who identify as born again or evangelical. However, the southern states are more similar to Iowa than New Hampshire in their demographic makeup. Watching how Trump does in South Carolina will be his next big test.

When voters were asked what the top quality they look for in a candidate is, the most popular choice was a candidate that agrees with their values (35 percent). For these voters, their top choice was a tie between Ted Cruz and John Kasich, both receiving 21 percent. Donald Trump only received 13 percent of the vote from this group. This could prove to be problematic for Trump moving forward if his opponents capitalize on it.

A key issue in the election is immigration and one of the largest voting demographics are independents. New Hampshire is a state where there are more registered independents than Republicans and Democrats. In the GOP Primary, 56 percent of the independents support a pathway to citizenship while 41 percent believe illegal immigrants should be deported. Trump tied with Kasich for voters who support a pathway to citizenship. This will not likely be a major issue for Trump in the Republican primary, but it will be if he wins the nomination in a general election.

Finally, we are starting to see a separation between candidates on the GOP ballot. As mentioned, Trump is the clear favorite at this point. The second-tier candidates are shaping up to be Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush, with no clear separation between them. We should begin to see the other candidates’ exit strategies on how to leave the race with their political dignity still intact. Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina announced their exits on Wednesday.

Democrats

The main focus of Democratic pundits after the Iowa results was to determine if Bernie Sanders can continue the upward trajectory of his support. By finishing in a virtual tie with Clinton and outperforming Sanders’ own polling averages leading up to the Iowa caucus, the big question for New Hampshire was whether or not Clinton could close the gap with Sanders according to those polls.

The New Hampshire primary has definitively told us that Bernie Sanders is a legitimate challenger to the Clinton legacy. Here’s why: Many comparisons have been made of the current battle for the White House between Clinton and Sanders and the historic primary elections between Clinton and Obama in 2008. With Sanders’s large victory in New Hampshire, he actually has more pledged delegates than Obama did after the same two early elections in 2008. This must have the Clinton camp shaking their heads and thinking here we go again.

Bernie Sanders won every demographic group except for voters who are over sixty-five, voters who make more than $200,000 per year, and voters who are nonwhite. Bernie even won the women vote by an 11-point margin. (Sorry, Madeleine Albright, but I guess there is a place in hell for many New Hampshire women.) This is a great sign for Sanders supporters if this is representative of Hillary Clinton’s constituency.

Finally, it appears that Clinton has a ceiling of support that she is receiving from Democrats and independents, while Sanders’s ceiling continues to rise as voters get to know him. If we look back at New Hampshire in 2008, Clinton received 39 percent of the vote in a race she won. On Tuesday, she received nearly the exact same percentage of the vote, and she lost by a huge margin. If John Edwards had not been a viable candidate for President in 2008, it’s a good chance that President Obama would have had a comparable result to Sanders’s on Tuesday.

Fortunately for Clinton supporters or those who enjoy the entertainment value of a competitive presidential election, it’s not all doom and gloom in the aftermath of the crushing defeat she saw in New Hampshire. Although it was essentially a tie, Clinton did win the nonwhite voting demographic. This will be Bernie’s big test moving forward as we approach states that have a much larger percentage of minority voters (which only makes up 7 percent of the electorate in New Hampshire). Clinton has big leads in states like South Carolina with large African-American populations and if this holds, it’s a great sign for her. If Sanders can continue his momentum with a solid performance in Nevada, minority voters might begin to embrace his candidacy, and he can start to chip away from the support Clinton currently has with this group.

I think humanists can thank Donald Trump for at least one contribution to our political discourse: While he may make a reference or two about religion every now and then, Trump is showing Republicans that you don’t have to make it a central theme of your campaign to get elected. We’ll still have to wait and see how this plays with southern evangelicals, but there is plenty of evidence at this point to think that he may be on to something.

Another good sign for the humanist movement is that for the first time in our nation’s history, a non-Christian won a presidential primary (Sanders identifies as Jewish). This should be very helpful to secular organizations with political activities, like the Center for Freethought Equality, in their promotion of the fact that non-Christian candidates can win Democratic Party elections.

For me, a core principle of humanism is being an active participant in improving the wellbeing and prosperity of society as a whole. Voting and being involved in the political process is one of the ways that we can achieve this. The first step is being as knowledgeable as you can about the issues and the candidates. The next is to actually go out there and vote. As long as we are doing this, the secular movement will continue to grow its profile and influence within politics. One day, possibly not too long from now, we will see the first self-identified humanist candidate win a primary in a progressive, Democratic-leaning state.

Over the past several months, we’ve gotten a sense of how the 2016 presidential elections are shaping up. Well, at least for the primary. We’ve seen the candidates at their podiums giving speeches that feed red meat their bases. We’ve started to see political ads from Super PACs and special interest groups touting their preferred candidate’s record or getting the lead on the negative attacks (which we’ll definitely see more of in the months ahead). And we’ve also borne witness to the presidential debates that have captivated millions of people who want to see if candidates will give brilliant answers to tough policy questions or say something stupid that will go viral online and become the talk of the media pundits.

But have we learned anything about these candidates that would cause a big shift in polling? The data doesn’t reflect this even though there have been some moderate shifts in the public’s favorite at this point. A big argument of the debate structure for the GOP is that there are too many candidates and not enough time on the big stage to get a good idea of what their positons are. The argument on the left is that the Democratic National Committee wants Hillary Clinton to be the nominee and is thus limiting the number of debates while also nudging other candidates to not go too “negative” against her. There are definite merits to both of these arguments, but what is the solution to ensure that voters can truly get to the heart of a candidate’s position on public policy?

One of the solutions could be changing the structure of all debates, especially during the primary season, to single-issue forums. It’s said that this type of political discourse is impossible in our rigid, two-party system that forces individuals into a lesser-of-two-evils decision in many instances. This is a valid argument against two-party systems and in favor of a multi-party system, but I don’t think we’ll see that change anytime soon.

However, single-issue debates would allow both the candidates and the audience to focus more narrowly on important issues rather than skim the surface. Because candidates would have more nuanced and detailed discussions on stage, voters could gain a better understanding on what their positions are on these issues.

But even in this format, there will be some issues that will not be addressed and not receive equal attention. The problem arises when you have millions of single-issue voters who feel that their primary concerns were not addressed in one of these single-issue debates. How will these voters feel when their cause –climate change, or science more broadly, for example, or racial justice for another—isn’t one of the five or ten that can be addressed in a single-issue debate over the course of the presidential campaign?

This issue inspired the Center for Freethought Equality, the political arm of the American Humanist Association, to conduct a survey last month called the “Political Pulse of Secular America.” The purpose of the survey was to help our movement determine not only which presidential candidates the secular community favors but also what issues are most important to us. The goal was to learn more about the secular community’s thoughts and opinions on national politics to be in a better position to advocate for them in the future.

So, was there any consensus from this survey on a particular issue the secular community would advocate to have a single-issue debate around? Let’s look at the results to find out.

The survey was open for responses for twenty-one days and was promoted on social media, blogs, and in email communications, as well as by many different groups, writers, and leaders within the secular movement. In total, 2,242 people responded to the survey. This was not a scientific poll.

Summary of Results

58 percent are affiliated with the Democratic Party and 41 percent think of themselves as Independents.

Of the Independents, 45 percent view themselves as closer to the Democrats while only 2 percent view themselves as closer to Republicans.

83 percent are at least very interested in national politics, with 56 percent saying they have contributed money to political candidates or PACs in the past five years.

76 percent believe the country is heading in the right direction and approve at least a moderate amount of the job President Barack Obama is doing.

74 percent would vote for Bernie Sanders for president if the election were held now, 21 percent for Hillary Clinton, and 2 percent for Donald Trump.

35 percent say that the separation of church and state is one of the top three most important issues, but respondents rank this behind economy and jobs, health care, and climate change overall.

41 percent believe that science education and research funding is the most important secular issue the next president should address.

It’s very important that people form their own interpretation of what the broader implications of these surveys are, but I think some are clear. For starters, the secular community is not only overwhelmingly supporting Bernie Sanders for president, they are also at least moderately enthusiastic about their choices. Secondly, this is just another piece of evidence that shows how the rise of secular Americans greatly benefits the Democratic Party, a fact that organizations like the Center for Freethought Equality will make sure they’re aware of. Finally, just like every large minority group in this country, the secular community for the most part is not monolithic in the issues we care most about. Sure, we care more about separation of church and state than the average voter, but just like the average voter, we care more about having a job, getting quality healthcare, and ensuring that the our environment is habitable for generations to come.

(Washington, DC, Nov. 9, 2015)—The Center for Freethought Equality, the only secular organization in America with an active political action committee dedicated to supporting secular political candidates, decries U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (TX) for his assertion that anyone who does not pray is not qualified to be U.S. President.

Senator Cruz made his remarks this weekend in Des Moines, Iowa, at the 2015 National Religious Liberties Conference, organized by Generations with Vision. When asked how important it is for the President of the United States to fear God, Cruz responded that “any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation.”

“By claiming that those who do not pray are not fit for office, Senator Cruz is perpetuating the prejudiced myth that humanists and atheists are not moral people,” said Bishop McNeill, manager of the Freethought Equality Fund PAC. “There are a number of recent studies that show that despite how religious Americans remain, a majority of people would vote for a qualified atheist for President.”

McNeill referenced a 2015 Survey by Gallup that shows 58 percent of Americans saying they would vote for an atheist as President. The survey also highlights how younger voters are even more accepting of atheist candidates, with 75 percent of people under thirty saying the same.

“In his callous dismissal of humanists, atheists and other secular Americans, Senator Cruz also shows that he is out-of-touch with the growing number of Americans who are not affiliated with any religion,” McNeill continued, in reference to the 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Study released last week that reported 23 percent of Americans do not identify with any religion.

Currently, there are no open atheists or humanists serving in the U.S. Congress. However, the FEF is currently endorsing State Senator Jamie Raskin for U.S. Congress for Maryland’s 8th congressional district. Raskin is a self-identified humanist and a strong supporter of the separation of church and state.

More information about the FEF’s activities to elect secular candidates can be found here.

###

The Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) aims to increase secular, humanist, and atheist representation in public office so that our government accurately reflects the people it serves. The FEF will support progressive candidates that are strong advocates for the separation of religion and government and the protection of Americans civil liberties.

(Washington, D.C., August 5, 2015)—Today the Freethought Equality Fund PAC announced its endorsement of State Senator Jamie Raskin for election in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District.

“We are dedicated to ensuring Jamie Raskin’s election to Congress as the first candidate who openly identifies as a humanist with a commitment to champion the First Amendment principles of our Constitution,” said PAC Manager Bishop McNeill.

As a progressive Democrat, Senator Raskin led floor fights in the Maryland Senate to recognize same-sex marriage, pass the Second Chance Act, repeal the death penalty, ban the shackling of pregnant prisoners in labor, and legalize medical marijuana. As a renowned professor of constitutional law and member of the American Humanist Association, Raskin is also one of the nation’s leading advocates for reason in government, science-based public policy, and the separation of church and state.

“I am fighting for a politics that has all of humanity in mind and does not divide people based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religion,” said Senator Raskin. “I’m delighted to accept the endorsement of the Freethought Equality Fund and everyone else who wants to make sure that we base public policy on science, reason and humanist values that take into account the interests of all people.”

The American Humanist Association defines humanism as a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Raskin received national notice from secularists and progressives in 2006 when he testified in favor of marriage equality saying, “When you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

More information about Raskin’s campaign is available here, and more information about the Freethought Equality Fund PAC can be found here.

###

The Freethought Equality Fund (FEF) aims to increase secular, humanist, and atheist representation in public office so that our government accurately reflects the people it serves. The FEF will support progressive candidates that are strong advocates for the separation of religion and government and the protection of Americans civil liberties.